About Me

Monday, September 28, 2015

Eco-protectionism is wrong. The idea that countries and economies
should erect new trade barriers on top of existing ones, tariff or non-tariff,
to cut carbon emission is wrong. Trade precedes growth and development,
inclusive or otherwise.

Here is an example of eco-protectionism, from a PH planet
saviour climate official during the APEC meeting in Iloilo City last week. He said,

“If you (APEC economies) are not prepared to address
(disaster risk issues), then there is no trade to speak of,”

"For instance, some countries are considering the
imposition of border adjustment taxes on imports produced with greater carbon
emissions than similar products produced domestically, and subject to carbon
emission limits," said Davies.

"At the same time, however, another form of
protectionism is threatening to assert itself: imposition of trade measures,
ostensibly for reducing emissions of harmful greenhouse gases (GHGs). The two
dominant economic powers, the US and the European Union (EU), have signalled
the introduction of domestic legislation for reducing emissions of carbon
dioxide, one of the principal GHGs, by establishing standards for their
domestic industries. But, perhaps more importantly, they have also indicated
that these standards will be imposed on imported products. A new form of “green
protectionism” is, therefore, on the anvil, one that has been aptly described
by Prof. Scott Barratt of Columbia University as “eco-imperialism”.

Even someone from the German Green political foundation,
HBS, signaled caution against eco-protectionism.

"In earlier pieces, Krugman has answered this in the
affirmative and added that climate-based tariffs against carbon leakage, i.e.
the shifting of emissions abroad, had to be brought into compliance with WTO
rules. I do not want to categorically nay-say this but point out a number of
serious political risks:

Firstly, European industry has already been granted a
number of exemptions from emissions trading and thus achieved considerable cost
advantages. Additional climate tariffs would not be legitimate protection but
protectionism.

Secondly, important industries such as car manufacturing
have unfortunately already won pyrrhic victories against modernisation.
Protective tariffs would only further encourage such obstructive
behaviour."

"Environmental ideologues continue to make dour
prognostications about our planet's future, claiming that we all must consume
less, have fewer children and trade less with each other to address climate
change. Based on their scaremongering and frankly embarrassing record of false
predictions in recent decades, these claims should not be heeded seriously.
Such demands may suit the protectionist agenda but they have little merit in
terms of their practical ability to enable humanity to use scarce natural and human
resources in an ever-more sustainable manner.

The competitive market process, underpinned by free trade
between and within nations, is inherently more sustainable than the regulated
economy advocated by eco-doom mongers. Protectionism, naked or cloaked in
green, harms the vast majority of people as well as the environment - and is
best avoided.“